Navigating the Legal Labyrinth: Domain Mastery With John Berryhill and Homage to Howard Neu | Saw.com - Uncomfortable with Jeffrey Gabriel

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'd like to call this episode the life and times of
John Berryhill, with a tributeto Howard New.
John is an industry domain nameattorney and we have worked
together for about a decade.
We started working togetherwhile I was at Uniregistry and
in the beginning it was a littlebit rocky and you get to hear
the story about it.
But since then we've certainlybecome close friends, and that
also includes his wonderful wife, MJ.

(00:21):
They are certainly a pair thatbeats four of a kind.
But I have to say I'm a littledisappointed in John as he
didn't wear his Christmaspresent, which you can see in
the picture of this episode.
But on this episode we go overhis beginnings.
Then we start talking about ourhistory and some interesting
domain name disputes, and if youare a domain investor or

(00:44):
someone that is consideringpurchasing a valuable domain
name, or if you own one, youshould listen to JB and pay
close attention.
Now, despite not recording asecond part yet, we'll certainly
be doing that with some moreinteresting disputes and goings
on in the domain name legalworld.
Thanks for listening.
Have a good week.

(01:04):
Today on the UncomfortablePodcast you have industry
veteran and patent andintellectual property attorney,
Dr John Berryhill, who was alsoa very active participant, ICANN
, being part of the RegistrarConstituency Representative as
well as the Treasurer the ICANNNominating Community GNSO
Working Group, who is a memberof the ICANN Community and the

(01:27):
ICANN Community.
He's been a speaker atcountless important events in
the domain industry and a memberof the Internet Commerce
Association.
John has a Bachelor's ofEngineering with a Physics minor
, Masters in Engineering, aDoctorate of Philosophy in
Electrical Engineering we'regoing to talk about that all

(01:49):
earned at the University ofDelaware, and he's also a member
of the ICANN Community.
So he's a member of the ICANNElectrical Engineering.
We're going to talk about that.
All earned at the University ofDelaware and he graduated law
school from Weidner Universityor Weidner is it Weidner Weidner
?

Speaker 2 (02:08):
I hardly even know her.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
Oh God, he was also born in a log cabin he built
himself.
John, welcome to the show.
We're here, so our listenersnow worked at Universtry
together.
He was our legal counsel there.
We worked there together forabout seven years and while
working with me on the brokerageside of the business, he also

(02:33):
helped with the registrar andthe registry.
He assisted with domainbrokerage terms, contracts,
contract negotiations and myfavorite part trademark threats
or just threats in general andinteresting situations that
appeared at the registrar too,and while I was trying to sell
the names in Frank Shilling'sportfolio of 350,000 domains, he

(02:57):
was tasked with trying toprotect it on a daily, weekly,
yearly basis.
So we've definitely had a lotof great situations that we can
talk about.
But before we really get intoJohn and into our experiences
together and some of our stories, I would say something about
Howard New.
A couple of days ago we heardsome very unfortunate news of

(03:19):
his passing and one of thethings that I've noticed over
the years of being in the domainindustry of 14 years, I'd say
that there's probably between 10and 15 really active lawyers
that really specialize in domainname law in our industry on a
regular basis, that attend theconferences you know are writing

(03:42):
articles or are part of helpingwith ICANN or doing all kinds
of different things, and Howardwas certainly one of those
people, and he was not only adomain name attorney, but he put
on conferences and as longerthat I got to know him, he
became even more of a uniqueperson to me, because he was the
mayor of a town at one pointand he was also in a movie or

(04:05):
two as well one with Dan AckroydI forgot the name of it and he
was also just a genuinely niceguy and I'm really sorry to hear
about his passing.
And I know, john, you'veprobably worked with him on
countless occasions.
I like to hear what you thinkabout that and the relationship
with some of the other lawyersin the business in this tight
little industry.

Speaker 2 (04:26):
Yeah, actually Howard was one of the teachers in
Porky's too and he was a trafficcourt judge in one of the
Smokey and Bandit franchisemovies.
Which is funny because he hadone of his early legal
engagements was that he was amunicipal judge and went on to

(04:50):
become the mayor of North Miami.
But there is now a domainlawyer community that I'm always
afraid to list names because Iknow how to leave somebody out,
but turn back the clock to whenthe industry was really just in

(05:12):
its infancy and it was a muchsmaller list of names and there
are so many industry storiesthat start with.
Well, when I went to theoriginal traffic conference in
Delray that Rick Schwartz andHoward put on and Rick was
extremely blessed to have Howardas his attorney that was a

(05:39):
seminal event in the domainindustry and Howard could have
said, hey, I am the lawyer tothe industry.
He very graciously invited AriGoldberger and myself to a joint
.
Here are the domain lawyers.

(06:00):
Of course there were more.
We were the only three there atthat time.
Ari was a real pioneer indomain name litigation and Ari
got one of the first I think thefirst UDRP decision that

(06:21):
clearly said, hey, these thingsdo have value and can be resold
and can be used in connectionwith relevant advertising.
And Ari had done some of theearly litigation and Howard had
also been dealing with domainname disputes and domain name
issues back when people weresaying what was a domain name,

(06:45):
and he brought us together for afun session and I didn't
realize that it would be sort ofthe touchstone of so many
domain career stories and Howardreally kicked that off and he
was.

(07:07):
I tend to be pretty direct andpretty blunt about things.
If there are different stylesthat lawyers have and if you
come to me, I'm not going tospend 30 minutes kissing your
ass and some people get reallyturned off by that and I rub
people the wrong way and I getthat.

(07:29):
But what you do get from me isan honest, blunt, to the point
of opinion.
Howard always had a way ofmaking you feel special, no
matter what he was saying to you.
He could be saying to you to me, john, you're absolutely full
of crap and I would feel likeI'd just gotten the best
compliment one could ever begiven.
Nobody was excluded.

(07:51):
He was a very just, welcoming,happy guy and very satisfied
with who he was as a person andable to take that satisfaction
and draw in other people, and Iknow that Barbara was a big part

(08:12):
of really who he was and why hewas so happy and my condolences
go out to her at this time.
He was just a real giant of aman and he's going to leave a
hole, a Howard-sized hole thatcan't be filled really in the

(08:33):
profession and in our hearts.

Speaker 1 (08:36):
I agree and I really do feel bad for his wife because
at the conferences I went toand I went to him a little bit
later on I started going in2010,.
She was a huge part of that andinterviewing a lot of these
successful folks that I've hadon here.
There's always a commondenominator that behind these
successful people is usually avery supportive husband or wife

(09:01):
and she obviously was a big partof that and probably did a lot
more things behind the scenesand was there helping him to do
a lot of the little stuff aswell and keeping him grounded
and making it a great show and agreat place for people to, like
you said, help their careersand grow their careers and

(09:23):
really make the industry asstrong as it is today and I went
on to gain years of experienceand wisdom, much of which Howard
shared.

Speaker 2 (09:33):
He had news news and we also, among the people who do
domain law, there's sort of aninformal which has actually
become a little bit moreformalized, but an informal
email circle that's been goingon for years and Howard would
always share his tips andobservations and things that
he'd been picking up, and soover the years I gained so much

(09:55):
wisdom and experience, andworking with Frank Schilling was
a real interesting adventure aswell.
And then when he started hisregistrar, he brought in this
sales guy who I never heard of.
The guy I didn't know him fromAdam, but I think he had asked
me some question and then, likewithin a few days, was saying

(10:19):
you know, well, I asked BarryHill this question and he hasn't
gotten back to me yet, and thatguy was such a prick.
How did it seem from your end,jeff?
Oh well, that was our.
You know what?

Speaker 1 (10:32):
we got off on.
Okay, so let me back up here.
So you just went from Howardinto this.
I was like wait a minute whathappened here.
Okay, so I was a domain brokerwith my own business and Frank
was one of my clients and weworked together for a number of

(10:52):
years.
And then Frank I'm going to dothe very abridged version
because this show isn't about meFrank made an offer that I
couldn't say no to and in a veryshort period of time he wanted
me to report to the CaymanIslands.
I think I accepted working forhim like mid-December, and I was
there on January 3rd.
So I get there and I'm like Ineed this, this, this and this,

(11:17):
and some of those things werelegal related documents, one
being a purchase and saleagreement so we could sell
domain names properly, and someother random stuff.
I don't remember what it was.
And so Frank's like John BarryHill is at your disposal, you
can email him for anything youwant.

(11:37):
I pay him monthly to handle mydomain issues and whatever.
And I thought that when youwork for any company, that
usually you're told someonetells you, you know, tells the
people that are working there,especially when the company, I
think, was five people that anew person would be joining, you

(11:59):
know.
So I sent an email to John andI said hey, john, you know how
are you.
I'd like to find that emailbecause I'll bet you I
introduced myself as working forFrank and you didn't even read
that part.

Speaker 2 (12:11):
That happened.
That did happen a lot with newfighters.
They, you know, get introducedaround the office and came in
and I was like, oh, and here'sour lawyer.
Who the hell are you?
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (12:23):
who the hell are you?
Oh, I've been here for sixmonths and then, and then I'm
Frank's like what's going onwith these like three deals?
And I'm like, well, thesepeople want an agreement and
this guy, john, isn't gettingback to me and and I'm like I
need these agreements, I need itdone, like soon.
And then I remember it, cause Iwas in the apartment that I was

(12:46):
renting that like a night, likeI was just there like a couple
of weeks, and I remember I getthe phone call from Frank and
then he brings you in and thenyou start yelling at me like who
the fuck is this guy?
Who the fuck does he think heis?
You and I telling me to do this.

Speaker 2 (13:03):
Frank set up the call I remember it now and you and I
were on the call and Frankwasn't there yet, right?
And by the time Frank got onthe call, we were at each
other's throat and I was readingeither I had act.

Speaker 1 (13:18):
I was like who is this asshole?
Oh hi guys.
You were trying to do was sayingall right, I'll write you your
agreement when I have time.
But you're also trying to makeit that it was like an Adobe
that I could only do drop downsin certain sections and you're
going to lock the contract.
And I was like I can't do thisand have to deal with this like

(13:42):
traffic, like jam, every time wehave something and then have to
beg you and wait two weeks foryou to finally get back to me.
So I remember arguing withFrank about saying you're
getting in the way.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
The negotiations on the contract either.
That's the thing is.
You know we don't want youissuing a thousand different
contracts.
We want to know what every oneof them says without having to
look it up, because God knowswhere Gabriel is putting them
after they get signed.
Don't worry about it no.

Speaker 1 (14:12):
So Frank said let him try it without all the
restrictions and get him the gethim the damn contract.
And he did, and we never had aproblem regarding that contract
in the seven years I was there.
Right, Right.

Speaker 2 (14:26):
Yeah, that's, true actually.

Speaker 1 (14:29):
Yeah, or the other 20 variations we use.
You know what happens, though.
What can happen, though, inBrokerage in general and it did
happen at Uniregistry, and Inever told you this but what can
happen is like some buyerchanges things in the agreement
and then someone, and thenyou're done with that agreement

(14:49):
and you forget about it and thesale happens and everybody's
happy.
And then, like a month or twolater, like you, someone says,
hey, do you have a copy of anagreement?
And someone's like, oh, youcould use the you know sawcom
agreement.
You know, just use that one,and then that becomes one that
someone uses, and now you havechanges in it that you don't
know about.
And then it's like you come, itcomes back like six months
later and you're like, oh, whatthe?

(15:10):
You're looking at it Like, oh,not good, but hey, you know it
is what it is.
But to give some people somemore background, so when I got
there, one of the main thingsthat we had was Frank's
portfolio of 350,000 names, andon a daily basis it had over a
thousand people inquiring topurchase his domains.

(15:34):
It could be from anyone aroundthe world, it could be political
people talking about politics,it could be confused people like
he had subwaycom people lookingto fill their subway cards,
subway sandwich peoplecomplaining about sandwiches,
all kinds of stuff.
And then when people would comein, everything would be put
into a CRM and John had anaccount in the CRM and the leads

(15:58):
were distributed to each of thesalespeople and then, on top of
Frank's, we also had all of theother hundreds of clients that
were using our brokerage and wewould have all of these leads
coming in and we would save allof the communication.
All of the inbound, all theoutbound communication was all
logged in this CRM and John hadan account of his own and that

(16:21):
if there was any kind of threatsor issues or questionable thing
going on, whether there waslike illegal activity, we could
click like ask lawyer button andthen there was like a dropdown
of options, you know liketrademark threat, other I don't
remember what they were, but itwas like DEF CON one, two and
three, right, yeah.

Speaker 2 (16:39):
And then, we would go ahead.
Yeah, questionable targeting.
Check the targeting on the name.
Yeah first inquiry on a name, doa quick background check on the
name, suspicious inquiry,direct trademark threat, yeah
that kind of thing.
It was such a cool feature tooCause.
And what was kind ofunfortunate is we had kind of

(17:03):
talked about had that theUniregistry system going on,
making that a feature that couldbe rolled out where people
could add their lawyer to theiraccount, whoever that lawyer
might be, and have a you know.
Oh, this conversation's gonesouth, I want a lawyer to check
it out, or you know have, sothat lawyers could say, oh, okay

(17:23):
, well, I'll set up anaccounting here and do that for
my clients.
But yeah, that was a lot of fun.
It was kind of the secretweapon of you know, part of
Uniregistry success was thatlittle you know backend where it
was.
You know, you'll see things insome of the UDRP decisions.

(17:45):
For example, there's a decisionon PuketPuketcom, which is a
variant spelling of adestination in Thailand, and if
you read that UDRP decisionright, it says well, the
trademark inquirer inquired topurchase the domain name and

(18:05):
then the domain broker came backand said, well, this is a very
valuable domain name becauseit's a travel destination in
Thailand, and so forth.
So you could tell by the factthat you know the broker said
this, that you know this domainname was registered with that in
mind.
You know and it was beautifulbecause you know it would be

(18:25):
here's they're making asuspicious claim, you know.
It's like respond to them thisway.
You know, yeah, they didn'tknow that there was a lawyer,
with the strings, the puppets.
They're obvious UDRP was pushingthem.
Writing.

Speaker 1 (18:37):
Exhibit A.
Writing Exhibit A in the firstmessage to them, and they're
just setting them up for a realsituation.

Speaker 2 (18:45):
Yeah, and that was that was one of the lessons we
also had an orientation coursefrom for all the brokers, and
that was one of the.
What you just said was, whenyou are responding to a sales
inquiry, you are writing ExhibitA in a UDRP complaint, and you
know so it should reflect thereasons why the name is valuable

(19:05):
and things like that.
So you're a really good studentI was.

Speaker 1 (19:11):
But I was also interested in it because we also
had, you know, our situations,that we had companies that might
, if the broker didn't respondthe right way or the targeting
for parking was wrong, then theywould have really had a
legitimate claim of taking thedomain as theirs because it
could be causing damages orwhatever it is.

(19:32):
But then we also had a lot ofpeople who filed for the
trademark yesterday and Frankowned the domain for 20 years
and it was a generic word and orthey would you know say well,
you get to give it to me youknow, and us having a deal with
people like that or peoplethreatening lawsuits in general.

(19:53):
You know you brought up the.
You brought up the call that wehad when we met each other and
argued with each other.
But for the record, frank andJohn lugged through the Cayman
Airport a stuffed animal bananathe size of himself through
customs to bring to us as a gift, because you thought it was

(20:13):
funny that this guy spent likeall of his life savings at a
carnival to win this banana.
So John bought the same bananaand then brought it and brought
it into the office for us as aChristmas gift.
So what we used to do is, afterwe had this giant banana would
be when we'd get like somepeople would send in writing

(20:33):
threats to the Cayman Islandsand find our company address and
it would be letters of you know, like cease and desist or
whatever, and sometimes itwasn't even from a law firm, it
was just in general from aperson.
So we used to laugh and say,all right, just feed it to the
banana.
And so it would be like a pileof these that we would just
throw at the banana because thebanana was in the corner of the
room.

(20:54):
And we also got a remember whenthe woman sent us her underwear
she tried to return them.
She said they weren't up to herstandards or whatever.
And then she mailed a pair ofunderwear to us to the Cayman
Islands.
And it must have cost her 50bucks to mail the $10 pair of
underwear to us.
That was interesting.

Speaker 2 (21:12):
Oh well, and to incentivize the brokers to send
me the best examples of you knowidiotic ravings of trademark
attorneys and people who believethey have trademarks, there was
, of course, an award.
The John Berry Hill Award ofExcellence would go to the most

(21:33):
recent broker who bought me thebest bozo, and we'll leave it at
that.

Speaker 1 (21:38):
Yeah, we sure will do that, john, but that was
definitely.
We had a lot of fun.
I mean, we also had thesituation I'm sure lots of
people are really tuning intoour old war stories but I
remember that we had a situationwhere a lawyer was threatening

(22:00):
Frank in one of his names andyou reviewed the name and then
you decided which I wouldn'teven think about this, because I
would just assume that someonesaying they're a lawyer is
actually a lawyer.
So this person was threateningyou in a lawsuit and not you but
Frank in a lawsuit and sayingyou take the name.
And then you decided to lookinto this lawyer and it turned

(22:22):
out she wasn't a lawyer but shewas actually still in law school
and I remember your responsewas telling her that it was
actually a crime in the state ofTexas for you to be pretending
to be a lawyer when you're not.
And then I think you cited someother things and mentioned you
were gonna let the BarAssociation know and then you
could never.
I will end your career beforeit begins.

Speaker 2 (22:44):
I didn't say that.
I said I probably said it couldend your career before.

Speaker 1 (22:50):
Yeah, no, no, you didn't do it.
You were threatening that youcould do this if you don't leave
us alone.
And then, when that was done,she asked you if you were hiring
interns.
So you beat her so bad.
You know she wanted to becomeyour pupil, so that was one of
the funny ones that sticks out.

Speaker 2 (23:11):
That's a funny one, john Barry.
He'll threaten to some kid.

Speaker 1 (23:15):
That's freaking hilarious, I know right.

Speaker 2 (23:19):
All right.

Speaker 1 (23:19):
So for our listeners, that a lot of people are domain
investors, are thinking aboutpurchasing domain names in
general, and we're talking aboutwhat our relationship was like
and working with domains.
You know I wanna ask you beforewe really get into this is your
resume having a bachelor's inengineering and a physics minor,

(23:42):
so you must have been a lot offun in college.
Then a master's in engineeringright so in and of itself.
That in and of itself okay, issomething that is pretty
impressive as it is and a lot ofwork to accomplish right and
getting a master's you all is it.
And then I don't understandwhat the doctorate of philosophy

(24:04):
in electrical engineering canyou actually?
Explain what that means.

Speaker 2 (24:11):
Usually you say that the PhD stands for pile high and
deep, but I was seduced as anundergraduate into a research
program at the University ofDelaware that kept me engaged,
kept me employed and paid, and Ijust continued to stay within

(24:35):
this research program that I hadgotten into thus working
through, and I had a very, verygood thesis advisor who I think
the SEC might allow him to workin a public corporation these
days, but he's a very, verydynamic guy.
Yeah, and actually it wasduring the course of my doctoral

(25:00):
work.
I was working in semiconductorelectronics the physics of dirt,
just making rocks and electronsdo happy things together and we
applied for a patent on thething that I ended up making and
it kind of got me exposed tothis idea where I'd always had

(25:22):
this conflict between well, yeah, it was a lot of fun in college
doing all this technical stuff,but I also enjoyed talking
about stuff.
Anybody that knows me knows Ienjoy words and I enjoy playing
with words and putting themtogether, and I found out there
was this whole field where thosetwo things really come together

(25:45):
.
If you like to explain things,if you're fascinated by new
stuff, you know patent law was agood field to get into for
someone who enjoyed talkingabout technology.
I had briefly worked in a smalllaser company out west in a very

(26:08):
interesting couple of monthswhere I lived in Northern Utah
for a little while, completed aproject out there, came back and
then got a job with aPhiladelphia law firm where I
had first I had responded to anad in the IEEE spectrum it's
like the electrical engineeringnerd monthly, right, you know

(26:33):
the centerfold of the transistor, that kind of thing.
And I saw a New York law firmwas advertising for what are
called patent agents, because inthe US you can represent people
in the patent and trademarkoffice and in patent
applications without having alaw degree, as long as you have
a technical degree and pass apatent bar.

(26:55):
That's administered by thepatent office.
And there are law firms thathire technical people and make
patent agents out of them.
And I had gotten this interview.
They said like 200 peopleresponded to the ad.
They were gonna end interviewseven people for one physician
and I was one of the sevenpeople they interviewed and I
thought, well gosh, you know,maybe there's law firms that are

(27:18):
just looking for this kind ofthing anyway.
And if I was seven out of 200,if I just do.
You know cold calls yourfavorite thing, right, you love
cold calls that's your favorite,yeah.
Cold letters to law firms.
I had an interview with aprestigious law firm in Boston I
could have ended up up thereand a few more and I got a

(27:39):
rejection letter from this dinkylittle law firm in Philadelphia
and it only had like sevenpeople and I was an accident
that I wrote to them.
But after sending me therejection letter they called me
back for an interview,ultimately hired me.
I remember my first day of work.
I go to, you know, center City,philadelphia, glass Tower,

(27:59):
market Street, a block from theyou know that wedding cake city
hall that you always see ofPhiladelphia city hall.
Well, that was the view fromour office.
You could, you know, look upWilliam Penn's coat.
We were at the right angle.
He's holding the deed to thestate of Pennsylvania.
I don't know if you're familiarwith William Penn at the top of
the city hall, but he's holdingthe scroll right about waist

(28:23):
high.
So if you see him from theright angle, it's a really
interesting statue.
But they put the Phillies capon him in the World Series.
They put the Phillies jersey on.
Yeah, that kind of thing.
And you know, really happy goto work and had the same
experience.
I walked in and thereceptionist looked at me and
goes what do you want?
I'm like I got hired.

(28:44):
She's like nobody told me.
And funny thing, the firm DanDorfman, harold and Skillman was
started by Marshall Dan, whowas the commissioner of patents
in the Ford administration andin a long time Philadelphia
lawyer.
He had in fact been the head ofthe patent department at the

(29:06):
DuPont Corporation, which isvery important to people who
live in Delaware.
I grew up in a DuPont engineerfamily, you know kind of thing
here, and they had just movedinto their new offices because
the office tower they were inhad a fire and they didn't have
a place to put me.
So they put me in MarshallDan's office because he didn't

(29:29):
really come in.
He just kind of had an officeto have an office, but he was
winding down and retiring and soI had this huge office with the
actual plaque from his time ascommissioner of patents and
trademarks, you know, behind me.
So that was how I started off.
But that's you know Did you?

Speaker 1 (29:48):
steal the plaque when you moved on to your next job.
I think I can see it behind you.

Speaker 2 (29:57):
I know you don't you know Is it over your right
shoulder?
You don't see it behind me?
Well, when Marshall passed away, I had gotten in touch with
various people in the family andso forth, and actually no one
had any particular interest init.
So, yeah, I actually do stillhave that plaque, do you really?

Speaker 1 (30:21):
Yes, I do so it wasn't that I said you deny it.
They let you have it.
That's what you tell people.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
I keep donating it to something.
I mean maybe like the NationalHall of Fame of Inventors or
maybe there's a USPTO museumdown there in Arlington I
haven't been lately, but yeah,it should get somewhere.

Speaker 1 (30:41):
I guess.
So you were the engineerworking on the project applied
to some law firms.
This one of seven people whichwas a mistake hires you, You're
practicing, they paid for lawschool or you're paying for
yourself at the same time.
What happened there?

Speaker 2 (30:58):
Well, I had.
Actually, in order to improvemy chances of getting hired by a
law firm, I took the LSAT.
What did you get on it?
I got a very high score andthat qualified me for a half
tuition scholarship.

(31:19):
And what was entertaining wasbecause I was working full time
and it was about two, threeyears after I started working
that I actually applied to lawschool.
My score was still good, but Ihad applied to in the

(31:40):
Philadelphia area.
I was living in Wilmington,delaware, so the Delaware Law
School campus is near one of theone of the commuter rail stops,
and so on the application form,they said why did you choose to
apply to the Widener DelawareLaw School?
And I said it's convenient tomass transit and they gave me a
half tuition scholarship.

Speaker 1 (32:01):
So and that's where you met your current wife.
So what are they like?

Speaker 2 (32:09):
Yes, that's where I met Mary Jo.
A lot of people hear me talkabout MJ and some people don't
know Mary Jo.
I think I'm referring tosomething else, but she is the
light of my life.
And the other important thingwas that she finished fourth in
our class.
I finished sixth in our classand I thought, well, I never

(32:32):
want to have to yeah, I neverwant to have to argue with her.
So I married her.
But after the first actuallyactually my first semester in at
Widener Delaware Law School, Iwas first in the class and
finishing the first, finishingfirst in, like the first or
second semester.
They then gave me a fulltuition scholarship for the rest

(32:54):
of it.
Just keep going.
You know what I love is that?
Yeah, I think I said thatactually my second semester in
Widener Church.

Speaker 1 (32:58):
When you go to a college or a law school, they
always talk about the richhistory of like my dad went to
Suffolk Law School and mygrandfather went there, and it's
like you go in there andthere's like a building of all
these donors and they're talkingabout the rich history and the
people and the community.
And then the Dean is gonna givehis remarks and he's wearing a
purple robe with all thesethings on it and then they're

(33:21):
talking to you all about thatand you're like, yeah, it's only
like a half mile from my house,so that's why I wanna come and
I'm like nothing to do with allof the things that they talk
about in, like the prestige andlike what's gonna happen with
your career if you come here.

Speaker 2 (33:36):
Well, a lot of things can happen Now.
I went to the University ofDelaware and I think on the
internet side, a lot of peopleknow that the University of
Delaware was a very interestingplace to be during the
development of the internetbecause we had Professor David
Farber who was one of thefathers of the internet.
We had Dr David Mills whorecently actually just last,

(33:59):
also last month passed away theinventor of the network time
protocol that makes sure yourclock works right on your
computer.
And also at the University ofDelaware at the time I attended.
Well, during the long time Iattended for years and years and
years, new Jersey governor andpresidential candidate, chris

(34:20):
Christie was a graduate of theUniversity of Delaware.
The McCain campaign advisor,whose name escapes me now, steve
, whatever his name, he studiedfor a time at the University of
Delaware.
Joe Biden is a graduate of theUniversity of Delaware, so
occasionally he would do thecommencement speeches, because

(34:44):
he's probably the only thingthat comes out of the University
of Delaware that people arefamiliar with other than our
mascot, the fighting blue hens.
Delaware is one of the fewschools where the mascot is
served in the dining halls.
The fighting hens, the fightingcocks.
Delaware was famous for itsfighting cocks.

(35:05):
So you need a fighting cock,we're the place to go.
And then, of course, when I gotaccepted to Widener Widener is
not the most prestigious lawschool, I will say that it is
kind of a I needed a place thatwas convenient to go to get a

(35:25):
law degree at night Of course.
Because I had a full-time joband there's only you can go all
the way out to Rutgers, you cango all the way up to Temple or
Villanova and then get home atnight.
It's just not happening.
Wider was convenient to publictransportation, but Widener and
when I got a, the partner, themanaging partner, the law firm

(35:47):
when I got accepted I'd beenworking at this law firm for
three years and I was their starpatent agent and I got accepted
to Widener and the managingpartner said you know, widener's
not the most respected lawschool that there is.
And I looked at him.

(36:07):
I said you think I'm gonna havea hard time finding a job when
I get out.
And he's like oh, no, no, no,no, no, no, no.
You know, in the news NowWidener has two campuses, the
Delaware Law School and theHarrisburg Campus, and one of
our distinct graduates from theHarrisburg Campus is Alina Hava,

(36:28):
who many know as Donald Trump'strial lawyer, who has concluded
several recent trials with herclient.
So she is a graduate of WidenerUniversity.
The other thing that isinescapable in, of course, the
state of Delaware was thatduring the time I was there,
there was a small seminar classevery semester that would accept

(36:52):
like 12 students for Saturdaymornings from nine to noon to,
and it was a writing course, soyou had to do a paper for
advanced topics, selected topicsin constitutional law, and the
topics were selected topicsbecause it was whatever Joe
Biden felt like blowing offsteam about for three hours on a

(37:15):
Saturday morning back duringthe Clinton impeachment.
There was some rules around itbecause you're gonna spend three
hours every morning with a USSenator who's been the head of
judiciary committee, the head ofSenate Foreign Relations
Committee, worked with manypresidents, democrat and
Republican alike, back when thatwas possible, and he there was

(37:41):
a kind of you can't go off andsay, hey, guess what Joe Biden
said the other day, but I will,yeah, yeah, yeah well there's no
blue smartphones either, right?
My favorite Joe Biden story isthat the most dangerous place on
the planet for a number ofyears was between Joe Biden and

(38:02):
a camera.
Okay, it's not somewhere youwanna be, because any media
opportunity, any speakingopportunity, any place he could
flash this brilliant smile hehad, he would go.
And so during our class he wasrecounting the Robert Bork

(38:22):
nomination.
Robert Bork was a nominee tothe United States Supreme Court
who was one of the firstnominations in modern history to
have really gotten hung up overdeep political issues and
Robert Bork was refused by theSenate and ultimately Joe Biden

(38:48):
is head of judiciary and RonaldReagan did get together consult
on kind of a short list of whowould make it and who would make
it, and we moved on from that.
But there were so a lot ofremaining deep bitterness
between Judge Bork and SenatorBiden and one of the students in

(39:11):
the class said you guys shouldgo on Celebrity Deathmatch and I
remember that it was an MTVshow, it was a claymation show,
celebrity.
And so he said you should go onCelebrity Deathmatch.
And Joe Biden is like CelebrityDeathmatch, what's that?
The guy says, oh, it's a showon MTV.

(39:31):
And then Biden's like oh, a TV,you can see him.
You can see him light up.
There's a TV show.
I should go on that I haven'tbeen on yet, right, because I
mean Of course, politicians arepoliticians.
There are-.
Any chance he gets Anypolitician right.
So he's hearing about this andhe goes.

(39:55):
So what goes on in the show?
And this guy says, well,celebrities come on and they
fight to the death right, andBiden's like, to the death.
Really, it's not like he spendsa lot of time watching TV, god
knows no probably not.
He's like to the death really,and the guy's like it's

(40:17):
claymation and Joe Biden's likewhat's claymation?

Speaker 1 (40:23):
He goes what's claymation?

Speaker 2 (40:24):
And you could just see him go like oh okay, well,
let's get back to the topic.

Speaker 1 (40:29):
Disappointed.

Speaker 2 (40:30):
I know right.
Otherwise he would have beenhappy to go on TV and fight
Robert Bort to the death over ajudicial nomination.
That was, by that point,already you know pretty old, so-
.

Speaker 1 (40:43):
All right, well, let's get back to you instead of
talking about the Bidens andgossip.
So then you're there, youfinished law school you're at
the patent place.
So then let's kind of get themore of a bridged like when did
you have this idea that youwanted to get into more of like
intellectual property and getaway from the patents?

Speaker 2 (41:03):
Oh yeah, more broadly speaking, I was going to
continue on in patents and sinceI had started at this firm in
the early 90s, I was sort ofthere when the internet bloomed
and became a thing, and becauseI was commuting on the train, I
actually also was on the trainwith people from the University

(41:27):
of Pennsylvania that wereinvolved in some internet stuff
at that time as well, and yeah,so it found me more than
anything else.
There were some early domaindisputes.
That sort of caught myattention, and one of the things
I had kind of hoped to be as alawyer is being able to do

(41:49):
things for people that deservejustice.
Every now and then you do liketo think that you're doing some
good, and a lot of these timesare coming out of people being
bullied.
And before the UDRP, networksolutions had this very sort of
draconian sort of thing where ifsomebody had a trademark,

(42:10):
they'd show the registeredtrademark to network solutions.
Network solutions would come toyou and say do you have a
trademark?
If you didn't have a registeredtrademark, they would suspend
the domain name and that wouldbe that and when they suspend
the domain name, but thetrademark holder wouldn't end up
with it.

(42:31):
No, no, to get it transferredthe trademark holder would have
to jump through some other hoops.
It was a mess.
It was one of the things thatICANN was chartered to solve was
this sort of weird networksolution policy that created
bizarre incentives becausepeople found out that you can

(42:52):
get a registered trademark in 24hours from the Tunisian
trademark office.
You send in a application and abig check to a lawyer in Tunisia
who runs into the Tunisiantrademark office and runs out
the next day with a registeredtrademark that you could then
say to network solutions I havea registered trademark.
So people were getting, and infact, if you look at one of the

(43:14):
early UDRP cases Madonnacom,involving Dan Parisi, who was
one of the early demanders,among the factors discussed in
there is the fact that he has aTunisian trademark registration
and that was sort of one of theearly UDRP cases that set up a

(43:37):
double standard where we prettymuch take it face value any
piece of garbage that thecomplainant comes up with with a
government stamp on it asevidence of rights.
But if the respondent does thesame thing, we're going to
critically evaluate.
Well, he didn't have anygenuine intention to conduct any
sort of bona fide commerce inTunisia.

(43:58):
Obtaining a Tunisian trademarkregistration was just an
artifice designed to protect thedomain name.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
But how do they know that?
Why do you?
Well, why do you?
We've been considering openingan office there for two years,
Of course, right, yes, yes.

Speaker 2 (44:18):
Who wouldn't want to market?
I think it was like emailservices or something to
Tunisians for Madonna.

Speaker 1 (44:24):
You start up Capital of the World you know.

Speaker 2 (44:25):
Yeah, there are many, you know how much money's
coming out of?
There Big Catholic country,Madonna's a big thing.
Actually I have a few of my own, so there we go.
Sorry, my lady.

Speaker 1 (44:41):
Sorry, lady.
So the thing is so the UDRP, Ican kind of created WIPO, or
WIPO was created, or how didthat work out?

Speaker 2 (44:52):
WIPO.
This was another funny thingcoming in from the bizarre angle
that I came in on.
Wipo is a UN treatyorganization.
There exist a number ofintellectual property treaties
that govern the internationalprocessing of trademarks.
There's an international patentprocess where you can apply at
the blah blah, blah blah,whatever it is.

(45:12):
Anyway, wipo was created toadminister certain multilateral
treaties that relate tointellectual property and
trademarks and patents and soforth.
So they've existed for quite along time and WIPO became
interested in emergingintellectual.

(45:33):
They've always been interestedin emerging intellectual
property issues.
So WIPO had convened theoriginal panel of experts that
developed the thing which becamethe UDRP.
Wipo likes to tell a storyslightly differently.
Actually, wipo produced a draftthat went into the ICANN

(45:53):
process and was further modifiedto become the UDRP.
And there are these conspiracytheories about WIPO and so forth
.
And really to put things inperspective, if you look at the
things WIPO does internationaltrademarks, patent applications,
so forth in terms of volume,revenue, personnel, complexity

(46:16):
the UDRP is a minor, minor pieceof either the larger world of
WIPO, but an interesting one forthem because they like to be
engaged in cutting edge issuesof international and electoral

(46:36):
property issues, which theinternet is an abundant source
of.

Speaker 1 (46:41):
Do you think some of their UDRP findings spill over
to their other work and theirother parts of the company and
their other decision making?

Speaker 2 (46:50):
It's very compartmentalized, actually.
What's kind of funny, and Idon't know if I haven't been
there for a while but at onepoint you go to Geneva and
there's this beautiful gleamingglass building up the street
from the United Nations Genevaheadquarters, just down the
street from the Red Cross.
If you want to go to where theUDRP operation takes place, you

(47:14):
leave that building, go downaround a corner, down another
little street into a littlesquat building made of.
It looks like a holding thingfor the Geneva Police Department
.
It's this little city blockbuilding that's just jam-packed
with legal interns from aroundthe world who are there on a
two-year stint to manage cases.

(47:36):
When you say WIPO decisions,they aren't.
Wipo administers the UDRP.
The people that decide them areindependent panelists who are
chosen from by WIPO from amongthe intellectual property
profession around the world andhaving expertise in this
particular area.

Speaker 1 (47:57):
So can a panelist also be someone who represents
people in a UDRP?
Can you offer your services andbe kind of a double?

Speaker 2 (48:09):
agent, the best law school exam question.
I'm going to tell you how toanswer this question all the
time.
Any sentence that begins withcan a judge?
The answer is yes, civilprocedure courses get hung up by
people.
Can a judge yes, yes, a judgetravel faster than the speed of

(48:34):
light.
I don't care what it is, yes, ajudge can do it.
It's like, well, how can ajudge travel faster than the
speed of light?
It's like, well, go ahead andsay you didn't take them to
court and guess who gets todecide.
But in fact, that is aninteresting question because
many, yes, many they aretrademark experts with leading

(48:55):
firms around the world.
They practice trademark law.
By and large, they're in large,most, if not many, of the UDRP
panelists represent parties inUDRP proceedings.
There is a couple ofinteresting things that have
arisen of that.
There is, for example, a UDRPpanelist who decided a case

(49:16):
involving a particularcomplainant and then they show
up two, three years later asthat complainant's attorney in
UDRP proceedings.
So yeah, those things happen.
Very few UDRP panelists havedefended a UDRP proceedings at
this point, but when I say UDRPpanelists, udrp providers,

(49:40):
there's more than Waipo.
So, for example, zach Moskovichfrom the ICA he is an
accredited UDRP panelist withthe Canadian arbitration or
Canadian internet something,dispute resolution, whatever
they do.
A couple of UDRPs.
And Gerald Levine, a veryhighly regarded recipient of the

(50:03):
Lonnie Bork Award, is a UDRPpanelist, I believe, with the
National Arbitration Forum andone of the leading intellectuals
in the area of domain namedispute.
He actually he has aforthcoming book come out which
I would suggest anyoneinterested in the subject buy as

(50:24):
soon as it is available.
He's had a bunch of peoplelooking at this thing.
It's going to be clash of theclash of trademarks and domain
names or something like that,and when it comes out it'll be
worth buying at any price.
We're ripping off.
You know, get a, get a, make aPDF and pass it around.

Speaker 1 (50:43):
Yeah, you can get it off Pirate Bay or somewhere like
that would probably be the bestplace to get it right.
Right, of course I'll set up awebsite.
Yeah, it's totally fine to goget it at the library, as long
as you renew it every week, butto download it off the internet,
that's just ridiculous.
Yeah, all right.
So let's talk about UDRP realquick, the mechanism of it, and
then let's talk about somereally interesting ones that you

(51:05):
and I find to be extremelycomical and what happened in
them for some people listeningwith nine minutes left in the
hour for anybody who isn'tasleep yet.
Yeah, exactly, but I think Ithink some people are going to
find this interesting.
We're definitely going to spillover one hour, so we can
potentially make this a two partseries, but a UDRP in general.

(51:27):
There's three things you got to.
You have to prove is the domainis identically similar to your,
to the person's trademark Yep.
The opposing party has nolegitimate rights to the domain.
They have registered Yep.
Number two and number three thedomain name has been used and
registered in bad faith.

Speaker 2 (51:44):
Yes, those are the three things that somebody needs
to prove All three of them this, that and this right.
Yes, and you know so.
There are common misconceptionsaround.
You know around what kind ofthings I think on the domain or
end.
You know.
The first thing you said provedthat it's identical or
confusingly similar to atrademark in which the
complainant has rights, the.

(52:06):
There are registered trademarks.
Governments issue registeredtrademarks.
People apply for them.
The governments have differentrules for registering trademarks
in the United States and inmany countries around the world
and broadly under the UDRP tosome extent.

(52:27):
Where you get trademark rightsin the United States is by
running a business and usingthat name.
All right, if you have adistinctive term that you've
been using to sell your product,your service or whatever it is,
and consumers recognize that asoh, that's that guy that does

(52:47):
this thing.
You have a trademark subject to, you know, maybe, some other
conditions In the US and inother countries.
If you want to enhance yourrights, if you want to make them
more enforceable, if you wantto give public notice, if you
can get all kinds of benefits byregistering your trademark,
okay, it's sort of like you canhave a dog, all right, and and

(53:11):
and it's a lovely little dog andit's got it.
It wags its tail and it it.
It poops on the carpet and youdon't need anything else to own
a dog, all right.
But if you live somewhere whereif you're going to walk your
dog in the public park, you needto get a license for your dog,
you know?
Then you can go register yourdog and get a dog license, all

(53:32):
right.
Now if I want to know, if I'mthinking about okay, well, I
don't know, if that guy has adog or doesn't have a dog, all
right, I and the dog license isgood for five years, I go.
I want to find out if JeffGabriel has a dog.
I go to the whatever Swamplandin Florida, you live in the
county office and yeah, it's aGatorville, usa, you know or you

(53:57):
can't have a dog because itgoes missing all the time.
It's like alligator treats.
Whatever I go to your countyoffice, I look up your name to
see if you have a dog license.
Now, if it says, oh, jeffGabriel has a dog license, okay,
does that mean that JeffGabriel has a dog?

Speaker 1 (54:20):
Most likely, but not 100%.

Speaker 2 (54:23):
Yeah, they last for five years Maybe.
Maybe the Gators got your dogin year two, so you've got three
years.
You've got three years left on adog license.
Well, I look up and JeffGabriel is not in there, because
I'm trying to rob your house,right, and so you're not in the
dog license database.
So I say aha, jeff, does thatmean Jeff Gabriel does not have
a dog?

(54:43):
You know, no, it doesn't.
You might have a dog, you mightnot have licensed your dog.
Okay, trademarks are exactlythe same thing, but without the
dog.

Speaker 1 (54:52):
Yeah.
So what I always findinteresting, though, is it
seemed that that a buyer willcall and say, or an email will
say to you like I'm just pullingthis name out of thin air, like
you know johnsjohnscom andjohnsjohnscom, and you've had

(55:15):
johnjohnscom for a long time,and some buyer comes to us
because they're representing youand they just go.
They email you from a Gmailaddress.
The Gmail address doesn't comeup with anything and their name
is, you know, johnjohnscom, andyou can't find them on LinkedIn
or find anything about them.
And he's like we have atrademark, give us the domain.

(55:35):
And it seems like when somebodysays that, a lot of the times,
like domainers or people ingeneral will get scared, and
it's like they freeze, likethey've done something wrong,
and in reality, that's the guycould have a trademark, like you
just said, somewhere in thisplanet, and people don't know
what to do.

(55:56):
And you always taught us thatwhen someone says that to you,
you should probably ask somequestions before you do anything
else.
And the first is who the fuckare you?
You're inquiring from a Gmailaddress.
What company?
What company are yourepresenting?
What is your trademarkregistration number?

(56:16):
You know who exactly are you?
Can you identify yourself Right.
Those are like the absolutemost important things to do
right off the bat, and it'salways funny when it's someone
from like a big company, butthey're emailing you or
inquiring from Gmail, and thenthey're they're threatening you.
Even if they have a legitimatethreat, it's just funny that
you're supposed to know whothese people are, because if

(56:38):
it's a generic word other thanthem, there could be 10 other
million people want the name fortheir own uses.
Sure you know what I mean and sosure, or it could be another,
it could be another side and thespotlight turns on and we're
like caught because someone saystrademark, when in reality
you're like okay, you have atrademark, Good for you.
So what is it?
Tell me more about it.

Speaker 2 (56:58):
Yeah, and the letter said I had to respond in three
days.
Yeah, yeah, I had to get her topublish her sweepstakes
clearinghouse by the deadlinetoo.

Speaker 1 (57:11):
My favorite is we were going to save you the time.

Speaker 2 (57:15):
Right, you know I mean the thing.
And then if you take, you know,if I want to know if Jeff
Gabriel has a dog, because Iwant to ride at Rob's house,
well, you know how, about, if Ijust, you know, go check out his
house and see if I hearanything barking.
Because what I said about atrademark is, you know, people
got to know about it.
It's the means by which youidentify yourself, you know, and

(57:39):
so you know people would.
Well, if it's not a registeredtrademark, how do you find it?
And it's like, well, gosh, youknow, how would I know if
somebody is using John's John'sto sell things?
It's been called the Google,right, that's the whole point.
You know, is there is there abrand of shoes named John's

(58:01):
John's?
Is there, you know, some kindof sewage service called John's
John's?
You know it's a kind of a neatlittle rental thing.
And also, you know, what elsecould the domain name mean?
You know I'm, I'm named John,so so if they're asking someone
you know named John, well, whydo you have a domain name with
John in it?
You know it sometimes gets alittle silly.

(58:26):
Where people go astray is theysay, well, I just have a
dictionary word, it can't be atrademark.
You know, a lot of the besttrademarks are dictionary words.
Apple is a dictionary word.
There's a popular soft drink,two of the ingredients, sarkoka
and cola.
All right, but it was, you know, they've been doing it for a
long time.
There's there's an airline inAmerica called American Airlines

(58:48):
and they've been doing thatsince 1937.
But so a trademark consists oftwo things it's, you know, the
word, the term, the picture,whatever it is, in our case,
usually a sequence of characters.
And then there's the goods andservices that it's used with.
So if you know, apple forcomputers, you know, obviously

(59:12):
is a not a descriptive word.
Apple for apples is adescriptive word.
So you know what frequentlymatters is well, so this guy has
apples for salecom.
Why does he have apples forsalecom?
All right.
And if you know somebody says,hey, you know, I'd like to buy

(59:34):
that domain name, and he comesback and says, oh, yeah, it
would be great if you're selling, you know, computers, like
because of Apple, you know.
You know that's one thing youcould say you know, or are you
Apple corporation?
I'll sell it to you for amillion dollars.
But if you have apples forsalecom, you know there's
probably more fruit apples soldthan the computers themselves.

(59:58):
It's probably collectively alarger market.
I mean, look at, you knowwhat's his name.
What's his name?
I'm really sorry.

Speaker 1 (01:00:04):
Johnny Apples.

Speaker 2 (01:00:05):
No, no, no, I I the Vidaliacom, the guy that sells
the onions, or yeah, what?
No, he's watermeloncom.
Yeah, he's watermelon, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:00:18):
And I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:00:19):
This is why this is why I shouldn't do names.
Can you, can you?
Can you tell you know like Ihad Joe Biden as a professor?

Speaker 1 (01:00:25):
I can't remember Jack , anyway so let's, let's go,
let's turn it up a little bithere with that, though Like so
you're John.
Johns or Vidalias or Vidaliacomor Applecom, right.
So there was.
There's an interesting UDRPthat you and I said that we both

(01:00:49):
always found was interestingand and a kind of a chuckle, is
the story of bodacious-tatascom.
Okay, in in the United States,all right, the Webster's
Dictionary, for bodacious isoutright mistakeable, remarkable

(01:01:09):
, noteworthy, sexy, voluptuous.
Okay, right, tatas is a slangand it's not in the Webster's
Dictionary.
However, tatas in UrbanDictionary, which I think if you
ask any male in the UnitedStates what it is, they are

(01:01:30):
breasts of the utmost quality.
That's, that's what UrbanDictionary says as the as the
definition, right.
So bodacious-tatas, okay.
And a gentleman registered thatin in the 90s and he put on that
site adult related content,because what else would you do
with a domain name having to dowith something like that,

(01:01:52):
especially in the 90s, becausethat was what was paying the
most at the time.
And this person's in the UnitedStates.
And then this company camealong, which is a multi-billion
dollar international corporationcalled Tata, which in the
United States they own companyLand Rover and other car brands,

(01:02:15):
but they're not like, if youask people on the street what
Tata is as a car company, I betyou a lot of people wouldn't
know that they make these carsor different, different brands,
but they are a massivemultinational company and they
filed a grievance, or actually alawsuit in India saying that

(01:02:35):
this person, this domain name,was infringing on their
trademark because they're anIndian based company.
And that person, who ownedbodacious-tatas, bodacious-tata
with an Scom, lost the case inIndia.
But it was a no show, we didn'tgo fight it, so he lost.
Then, after winning the case,the Tata Corporation went and

(01:02:59):
filed a UDRP with WIPO Right Notexactly, but keep going.
What happened.
Okay, I'm gonna keep going withmy own version of the story.

Speaker 2 (01:03:09):
And then you can go after it later.
No, I'll make you look smart,so anyway, all right, correct,
please.
It's a tough job, butsomebody's gotta do it.

Speaker 1 (01:03:18):
Somebody's gonna do it.
Please enlighten us as to whatreally happened, rather than my
own warp mind.
No, no, no, no.

Speaker 2 (01:03:25):
The procedural background of these things is
one of the things that makeslawyers' law stories just like
oh okay, all right, but yeah, no, you're right.
The term bodacious Tata'sbecame popular in American
culture after the release of themovie An Officer and a
Gentleman.
It was, of course, everyonerecognized it for what it was,

(01:03:51):
but that movie in particular,involving All right.

Speaker 1 (01:03:58):
So it's a well-known term or phrase in the United
States the registrants in theUnited States.
They're putting something thatAmericans love on there that is
absolutely legitimate to do andnot against the law.

Speaker 2 (01:04:08):
Right, yeah, guy, in New Jersey, and the Tata
Corporation is, yeah, one of thelargest industrial companies in
India, big multinationalcompany, and so this was they
filed a lawsuit in India.
The thing is, lawsuits in Indiatake forever, all right, but
they filed the lawsuit so thatnetwork solutions would lock the

(01:04:31):
name.
Okay, cause when a lawsuitindependent of there are other
things besides UDRPs whenvarious kinds of lawsuits get
filed, some registrars lock thename.
Whether they should do so,depending upon the jurisdiction,
is a great topic, but anywaythey locked the name.
And then, because the lawsuitstook so long at that time I

(01:04:55):
don't know what it's like atthis point they also filed a
UDRP and the UDRP got assignedto a panelist who was from India
.
The guys in New Jersey had noidea what was going on but
weren't really necessarilyinterested in responding to all

(01:05:17):
these crazy packages of thingsthey were getting from overseas.
So they just let it go and thearbitrator assigned to the case
very prominent Indianintellectual property attorney
felt that well, you know, is it?
And this was early days?
We had to reason is thisconfusingly similar to the
trademark?
And it's like?
Well, tata's is certainly, youknow, a reference to the Tata's,

(01:05:42):
the family, the brothers, theempire, so that part is and
bodacious, like you said, itmeans grand or large or
prominent, and so it's like theprominent Tata's.
Well, that could only be areference to the bodacious
Tata's of the Tata corporation.

(01:06:05):
And so he transferred the name,or he ordered the name to be.
I think he ordered the name tobe canceled.
I'm trying to remember, but hemight have ordered it.
Yes, he ordered the name, Ithink, to be canceled, and the
name was never canceled.
And there is an option in theUDRP because the people that
wrote it didn't understand thatif a registrar deletes a name,

(01:06:26):
anybody could register it again.
Yeah, and I had.
I developed a hobby early on ofregistering the ones that got
canceled and putting funnywebsites there to make fun of
the lawyers and the processitself, and so people stopped
doing that, and I was waitingfor this because this would have
been the crown jewel of mycollection.

Speaker 1 (01:06:45):
Yeah, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:06:48):
And I got contacted by the guys in New Jersey about
this.
I said, hey, do you want me tograb this and get it back?
And they're like, well, we gotthis lawsuit in India.
And I'm like, no, it's alawsuit in India, who cares?

Speaker 1 (01:07:02):
Don't put India on vacation.

Speaker 2 (01:07:04):
Great legal advice.
I'm not a journalist.

Speaker 1 (01:07:05):
Other than that, you're good.

Speaker 2 (01:07:06):
Right, and so they didn't care if I recaptured the
name, but it never dropped.
It never dropped, and I justthought it was an oddity that it
just stayed that way.
It stayed that way for years.
All right, these tatas, theywere never gonna the.
I mean.
Normally, over time, thebodacious tatas will drop right,

(01:07:27):
but these bodacious tatas werestaying where they were over a
long period of many years.
So so, but do you think?

Speaker 1 (01:07:40):
do you think Actually ?

Speaker 2 (01:07:41):
I've found out.

Speaker 1 (01:07:43):
Do you think that only because they had an Indian
panelist that it went this wayand that the Indian person did
not realize how popular of asaying that was in the United?

Speaker 2 (01:07:52):
States.
Do you think that would go?
He had no idea he wouldn't.
You know there are weirdslaying expressions all the time
.
I mean you worked with peoplefrom the UK.
You know the funny stuff thatcomes out of your mouth.

Speaker 1 (01:08:05):
I understand that but this is a pretty strong one,
and if you say it to any malebetween the ages of like 25 and
65 years old, they're gonna knowwhat it means in the United
States at least that casual wordthat they throw around as an
insult in the UK, that whensomeone in the US hears it goes
oh my, what did you just say?

(01:08:25):
Oh yeah, yeah see you nextTuesday is insane yeah.
To know, to know American slang,you know, is a lot to ask of
you know an Indian trademarkattorney, regardless of how well
experienced he is, but but then, looking into it though, like
as a panelist, he obviously wentto the site and saw there was

(01:08:48):
adult content and if he searchedthat, there was a term that was
pretty common for adult relatedstuff.

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
You would probably see that that was, you know,
made sense.
So so that in the end, well,there's a lost the UDRP, he lost
the name.

Speaker 2 (01:09:04):
There was.
There's also.
There's also a debate about howmuch research should panelists
do on their own.
I mean, in normal adjudicativeprocesses you have two sides
arguing it out the judge in sortof English based US, then US
legal systems.

(01:09:24):
The judge is a neutral finderof fact, that you know.
Things are brought to him, theysatisfy the rules of evidence.
He rules on that.
He doesn't go off and look forstuff.
All right, yeah, and you knowso.
There was no evidence to thecontrary.
And this reference to thebodacious Tata's was being used
in connection with, you know,material that I mean in India,

(01:09:47):
in Bollywood movies.
You know, I don't even know ifthis is still the case, but they
couldn't show men and womenkissing in movies.
All right, oh yeah.
So the idea of you know, thesekinds of websites being freely
accessible is pretty, you know,pretty shocking to people's
sensibilities.

Speaker 1 (01:10:08):
If you got, if you had this UDRP right now and you
noticed that the panelists beingassigned to the UDRP is someone
who is going to be totally outof touch with this situation,
like this person seems like hewas, could you ask for a
different panelist?
No, you just have to educatethem.

Speaker 2 (01:10:27):
I mean, I leave nothing to chance.
I had a UDRP on the wordsquirrelscom, all right, in line
in the argument I had a picture, you know, of a squirrel, all
right, I mean, I had elkcom andI used a picture of elk.
Right, I have the, the, the,the.

Speaker 1 (01:10:46):
Sometimes you're a real wise guy in in some of
these UDRPs and I thinksometimes you put the picture in
there to really try to make theother side look like a bunch of
assholes.
You know, like that's the, youknow, exhibit A.
This is an elk.
An elk can be found, accordingto Wikipedia, in Maine.
And then you know the tops ofMaine and in the area and they

(01:11:08):
migrate across.
You know this long thing aboutwhat they eat in their you know
lifespan and I'm sure you go onand on about it, Right.

Speaker 2 (01:11:15):
Well, you asked about .
You asked about my favoritelike, like what have been my
favorite cases and my problem is, my favorite case is always.
You know one that I'm doingright now.
Okay, there is a pending UDRPdispute.
It'll probably be decided bythe time this.
This.

Speaker 1 (01:11:28):
I can hold this episode until so, to make sure
that it's out, so it doesn'tcause any issues.
I don't care.
Okay, you don't care, there'sno there's.

Speaker 2 (01:11:35):
You can talk about these things, okay, and I do on
my Twitter feed.
I'll say you know, here's anonsense.
Udrp case the.
The domain name is toroscomT-O-R-O-S.
Toroscom Toros it is.
It is registered to a, a personin Spain, and toros is the

(01:12:03):
Spanish word for bull.
All right, now, if I tell youthat someone in Spain registered
bullscom, like 30 years ago orwhenever it was, what do you
think they might've used it for?

Speaker 1 (01:12:20):
Well they're obviously in right.
Well, number one, they'reinfringing on someone's mark on
purpose and and since they'renot using it, they should
probably give it up, Right, Imean?
Those are the you know, thoseare the facts.

Speaker 2 (01:12:33):
I said they're, they're, they're.
You know, and I even said inthe UDRP response you know
Americans are pretty, you know,culturally ignorant.
And you know there are probablytwo things that people know
about Spain.
Number one is Francisco Francois still dead.
Number two is there is in Spainsomething that goes on with

(01:12:54):
bulls that attracts a lot ofattention.
Some people like it, somepeople don't like it.
You know it depends on ifyou're Hemingway or if you're
PETA but Gather around.

Speaker 1 (01:13:04):
it's a big secret, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:13:06):
They, they ran.
They for many years ran abullfighting site which you know
, obviously when people weren'tgathering in large numbers
didn't become much of a, youknow, much of a thing to do.
But many of them thecomplainant is a company in
Turkey called Toros, which inTurkey refers to the.
There they have actually a setof mountains.
It refers to the asteriologicalsign Toros Vubble Cause it's-

(01:13:31):
so it's even generic there.
I mean it's totally genericthere, as well, and they're a
fertilizer company, jeff Allright Bullshit, right Cow shit
Toros Guess what, yeah Guesswhat else made it into my
response.
So I'm, I'm, I'm waiting on thisone, because you know there's a
certain irony in a fertilizercompany.

(01:13:52):
You know going after somebodywho had a website about bulls,
when bulls make fertilizer allon their own, and you know, just
to make sure, and, like I said,you'd never assume the
panelists know what you'retalking about.
I explained.
It's the stuff that you getwhen you find a north facing
bull and wait at the south endof it and you can you must have

(01:14:14):
had a good laugh about that onewhen you wrote it, huh.
Never assume any culturalknowledge.
You know because you are in,you know, in an international
situation and words, words willstrike people differently.
So Bodacious Tata's, you know,got transferred and but it or it
got canceled and then it neverdropped and the reason was, you

(01:14:35):
know network solutions had beentold a lawsuit was filed in
India.
But if they don't hear back, ifthe case is not dismissed, or
you know they don't, you knowautomatically hear about legal
goings on in India.
And many years later, as manylegal systems started to come
online after many years,eventually I noticed one day hey

(01:14:57):
, you can look up High Court,bombay deli cases.
You know online what would everhappen with this case.
And I found out the case hadactually been dismissed for
non-prosecution.
You know, years ago I have anidea.
And so I got a copy of thedecision dismissing the case and
I said to network solutions youknow you now have to implement

(01:15:21):
the UDRP decision and I set up aback order for you know that
domain name and you know, had alittle, had a little fun with
that one while it lasted, for awhile too.
I don't think I ever knew that.

Speaker 1 (01:15:35):
You know these things , so let me ask you this
question who paid the renewalsduring that time?

Speaker 2 (01:15:40):
Isn't that a great question.
The, you know, for $6, I thinkmost registrars if they have
something on legal lock, it'sjust the cost that they eat.
There's a stupid rule.
If you want to talk aboutanother stupid thing in the UDRP
this is actually in the I canregister accreditation agreement
there is a rule that says thatif a domain name is going to

(01:16:02):
expire during a domainproceeding, the registrar has to
let the parties know and givethe complainant an opportunity
to pay the renewal, you know, sothat the name won't drop right,
and if the respondent's notgoing to pay for it.
And when we worked on thispolicy, this was one of the
stupid working groups I was inwhen we worked on this policy

(01:16:25):
someone came up with this dumbidea and I said look, we'll just
make the registrars pay theregistry, the renewal it's a
tiny fraction of domain namesInstead of coming up with this
stupid thing where oh, okay, Ihave my whole billing system and
whatnot renewal system set upso that people can renew their

(01:16:45):
domain names and now for an edgecase that involves a fractional
percentage domain names, I haveto set up the system where I
can bill somebody else for therenewal for this domain name
that they don't own and do itmanually and I'll tell you, I
think-.

Speaker 1 (01:17:00):
Then they lose the UDRP and they charge it back on
their credit card.
And then what are you doing?
You know I mean, and what ifyou stick somebody with?
Like withlink I'm investorinlink and we have like the
highest tier.
I don't know what our highesttier charges, but let's say it's
five grand Yep.
So then you know, if theregistrar is stuck paying for it
, why not create frivolouslawsuits with really high

(01:17:22):
renewal rates that somebody'sgonna, you know, hold the bag?
Obviously, we would never dothat, it's just, you know, the
times have changed based on that.
So we were talking aboutbodacious tattas.
We have another situation wheresomeone came to me and asked me
yesterday actually I wastalking to the owner of the
domain name gotmilfG-O-T-M-I-L-F dot com.

(01:17:44):
Okay, he told me that when Ilooked it up I looked up the
UDRP before this where did I putit?
Where did I put it?
Well, the gotmilf.

Speaker 2 (01:17:58):
the Dairy Board has won a number of domain cases on
their very well-known and highlyregarded you know, gotmilf
Gotmilf.

Speaker 1 (01:18:07):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:18:08):
And you know that's not something that they
necessarily want to haveassociated with.
You know that kind of material.

Speaker 1 (01:18:18):
And, but what I'm saying is, though, is that
bodacious tattas in the UnitedStates?
With a multinational Indiancompany that really the brands
of that company are known in theUnited States but the parent
company, tata, isn't verywell-known, right, but the
saying is well-known.

(01:18:39):
And then the gotmilf campaignstarted, I think in the late 90s
, early 2000s, and I rememberCindy Crawford with the milk
under the lip, and I rememberother people you know with a
glass of milk and the gotmilfand posters everywhere and all
that shit, Like it was a huge inthe US.

(01:18:59):
And so gotmilf, the UDRP wasfiled against him and even in
the UDRP the findings say thatit is very similar to the mark
and that the person whoregistered it knew when he
registered it that it wassimilar to the mark.
Yet they still found in hisfavor and they were even

(01:19:22):
pointing out the panelistspointed out that he pretty much
was doing all three things, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:19:29):
Well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well,
well.
All right, let me unwind that alittle bit.
And this is where the legalsystem and the nationality of
the lawyer matters.
Okay, because the seminal casein the US on this subject is

(01:19:53):
there was a very popular posterin the 1970s early 1970s, you
know when you would listen toCheech and Chong on 12 inch
vinyl records and so forth.

Speaker 1 (01:20:06):
Dr Gemento, yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:20:07):
There was a very popular poster that said enjoy
cocaine.
But it was the Coca-Cola scriptenjoy cocaine.
And it was in the red type ofscript that Coca-Cola was in.
All right and ha.
Very funny, it takes a you know, a well-known American brand

(01:20:28):
and turns it into this thing.
Or there were these thingscalled wacky packages that were
basically takeoffs on differentbrands and things like that.
Okay, there is a brand of dogtoy called Chew-E-Waton all
right, and they're little luxurypurses and shoes and things

(01:20:52):
that your dog can chew on, allright, and it's Chew-E-Waton.
It's this high-fashion dog toys.
And Louis Vuitton, you know,sued them, right, and in the US
you are allowed to have fun,you're allowed to make comment.
You know, you're allowed tosatire.
Oh well, this is a high-luxurybrand and we've made dog toys

(01:21:12):
out of it.
It's, you know, you're playingwith that association You're
making fun of, you know, aproduct containing sugar and
caffeine that's marketed tochildren and saying you know,
enjoy cocaine.
You know, and I guess you growup right, this is the point.

Speaker 1 (01:21:34):
Oh, cocaine in it at one point right.

Speaker 2 (01:21:37):
So, yeah, it's still has a non-stimulating cocaine
extract in it, which is why theCoca-Cola Company is also one of
the largest producers ofcocaine-based things like
lidocaine, novocaine, all thosethings that ended cane.

Speaker 1 (01:21:50):
Oh wow, did not know that yeah so, anyway, the I'm
gonna do it.

Speaker 2 (01:22:00):
I'm gonna do a Mitch McConnell here, yeah you're
gonna stroke out on me.

Speaker 1 (01:22:04):
What I was saying is that how is it that got milk?
It's parody.
It's parody.

Speaker 2 (01:22:09):
For a parody to be effective, parody is legal.
It's legal to talk about things.
It's legal to say I hateCoca-Cola and have.
I hate Coca-Colacom about howmuch you hate Coca-Cola.
You are referring to the mark.
A parody, in order to beeffective, has to bring the
subject to mind.
That is Chewie Vuitton onlyworks.

(01:22:30):
You look at the dog toy it's aChewie Vuitton.
You go ha, because you arethinking that this is not Louis
Vuitton.
This is a joke.

Speaker 1 (01:22:39):
Yeah, you know the moment you see it, they're not
making fake person with leather,they're making dog toys, which
Louis Vuitton doesn't make atall.

Speaker 2 (01:22:47):
And sometimes these things work or don't work.
There was another case, incontrast to the, and this was
back when you'd have the blacklight and the posters on the
wall, there was another popularposter that had a young woman
dressed as a girl scout and shewas visibly with child and it

(01:23:15):
had the Boy Scout motto beprepared on it, okay, and it was
, you know, a commentary onbirth control, which at that
time was well, actually, here weare again.
It's a controversial topic, butanyway, it was at that time,
you know, which we are returningto.

(01:23:36):
You know, birth control was,you know, a legally interesting
topic and they, actually thepeople selling that poster,
actually lost because of theassociation of sexual immorality
with the clean, living youthimage promoted by the Boy Scouts
, and so it was deemed to be,you know, parody.

(01:24:00):
That wasn't funny to the judge.
All right, basically that youknow you're, you're, you're, you
know you're harming theirreputation and it's like, well,
yeah, you know, but parody real,you know, incisive commentary,
does that.
So, you know, got milk isprobably years ago.

(01:24:21):
You know, associating got milk,you know, which is an acronym
that has a four letter word init.
You know, would be, would bekind of a scandalous you're.
You're taking it too far thingwhere it.
But you know it works so welland the panelists got it.
But that's a you got to have apanelist.

(01:24:42):
That is you know it understandsyou.
You keep your US parody law andyou know a lot of jurisdictions
.
You know just they do not getthe joke.

Speaker 1 (01:24:54):
Okay.
Why on earth would anybody doapply when they do a UDR P can
choose between one and threepanelists.
Why wouldn't you always go forthree, knowing that one of the
three will probably be anAmerican who's going to say look
, bodacious Tata's is, was inthis movie and it's a very
common saying, and really bringto light to people or educate
them, for you, Like, you alwayshave an advocate who or someone

(01:25:15):
is an advocate from Europe,saying to the American guy like,
look, this isn't, this isn'tokay or it is.
Let's get them like yeah, thisis bullshit, you know, like,
take the name away, Like.
But the other thing is is thatwe have two situations here.
One's parody bodacious Tata'sis not parody at all.
I think it's genuinely anaccident.

(01:25:36):
I guarantee you this guy didn'tthink I'm going to sell this to
the Tata corporation and I'llbet you he was floored when he
got the email or the letter inthe mail, or whatever it was, or
laughed at it, saying who arethese jokers?

Speaker 2 (01:25:47):
Oh yeah, I spoke with them.
They, you know they, they were,they were just, they were just
really confused by the wholeprocess.

Speaker 1 (01:25:55):
Oh, I'm sure totally like this isn't.
Yeah, so, but yeah, I mean it's, it's definitely interesting.
But now asking you this andthen we can, we can move on to
the next one.
A real good one is can you citeprevious outcomes of similar
cases in the UDRP to thepanelists?

Speaker 2 (01:26:19):
Can you Could?

Speaker 1 (01:26:21):
you say you know John , like you're John Barry, all
the lawyer working on it.
And you say the panelists sayhis names, like Tommy, tommy.
This is the exact samesituation as this one and you
found this way on this one.
And these are the exact samesituations.
Bang Like could you say that?
Or are they going to just noteven look at that?

Speaker 2 (01:26:40):
That's actually, among other things, that that is
.
That is, that is a subject ofof of debate among UDRP
panelists itself.
The extent to which why shouldI be bound by?
You know what that otherasshole said.
All right, and the way thatUDRP precedent works.
It's not as rigid as you know,say a hierarchical court system.

(01:27:01):
But you know, in the US, forexample, you have these, you
know, district courts.
They make all kinds ofdecisions.
There's 12 circuit courts thatmake decisions and sometimes,
you know, you get principles inlaw that disagree from you know
it doesn't work that way inAlabama.
So you know these things have away of working themselves out

(01:27:22):
over time.
But in the UDRP there's justsort of like the weight of
opinion you can at this pointthere are so many UDRP cases you
can find a UDRP case that sayswhatever you want.
So when you are making anargument and if you're going to
use prior UDRP cases, whicheveryone does, it's good to see,
it's good to pick cases thatwere, you know, that were
contested cases, that werethree-member panel cases, that

(01:27:46):
involved particularly respectedpanelists.
Some panelists have moreexperience and more influence
within the UDRP panelistscommunity than other panelists
because some of them have, youknow like, made it their thing.
Every year WIPO conducts aseminar and UDRP panelists
training sessions.

(01:28:06):
There are certain panelists whoare, you know, chosen on the
basis of their experience andexpertise to be instructors and
they continue to act aspanelists.
So, you know, there are somethat mean more than others.
But you know, when you get, youknow, a bunch of decisions that
say one thing, you know thatbecomes, yes, the precedent.

(01:28:29):
Now, sometimes that changes.
There was a period where itwasn't clear whether or not you
could get a trademark.
I could register the domainname later, and then we go on
our merry way and then you filea UDRP and because of something
I'm doing, now you know youcould get the domain name, even

(01:28:50):
though you know I think I got itbackwards Reverse that I had
the domain name before you hadthe trademark.
There was a lot of debate aboutcircumstances under whether it
would or wouldn't fit the UDRPor, be fair to say, well, the
guy's doing something so nastynow we don't care when he
registered the domain namebecause when he renewed it he

(01:29:12):
re-registered it.
Okay, every time you need toagree to that, you know.
So there are these kinds ofthings that they would come up
with.
Or he used it in good faith formany years but now has changed
the use and renewed it, sothere's a change.
And then the thing is, the UDRPdoesn't involve testimony, it
doesn't involve physicalappearance.

(01:29:34):
You don't necessarily know thatpeople even got adequate notice
of the thing it's.
You know, here's a piece ofpaper, here's a piece of paper.
There's no experts, there's alot of due process mechanisms
that don't exist here.

Speaker 1 (01:29:48):
Well, it's supposed to be for speed though, because
you always have testimony andthings.
That's going to drag on formonths and months and months,
right?

Speaker 2 (01:29:54):
Right, right.
Yeah, you know I'm immune fromthe UDRP because I was.
You know I was once presidentor something like that.
You know he's not had a goodrecord lately in the UDRP either
, no, he lost.
Mar-a-lago.
He lost two Mar-a-Lago cases,but anyway.

Speaker 1 (01:30:15):
All right.
So let me ask you this questionwhile I have you All right.
All right, I always want, Iwanted to understand.
So Nat Cohen, who is one of theboard members of the ICA, he is
an attorney, he's also a domaininvestor, keeps a website that
tracks the reverse domain namehijacking findings, and there

(01:30:41):
are others that write about iton a regular basis.
When they happen, they'll belike our DNA is found for this
company doing this and whatever.
And I know that when you getthose outcomes, you know you're
really delighted because thatmeans you really pulverized them
in your outcome, right.

Speaker 2 (01:30:59):
In the bullfighting analogy it's like getting.
It's like in the bullfightinganalogy.
It's like getting the ear atthe end of the, the end of the
tournament, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:31:08):
Okay, so, other than everybody celebrating with each
other this one term, what doesit even fucking mean or matter?
Like, like, who cares?
You won the fight Right.
So it's like what is it thatmatters to get that, and what
does it actually do for thewinner?

Speaker 2 (01:31:28):
Well, you have to understand.
You know the legal professionis not like sales.
You know we have, we havestandards, we have a reputation
to uphold.
Oh, we cannot be seen to havebeen you know, crassly abusing
the levers of justice to justfor commercial gain of our
clients.

(01:31:48):
You know we got a.
You know we got a.
We got a funny baloney businessup hold here, you know.

Speaker 1 (01:31:57):
So, like squirrelscom , reverse domain hijacking comes
down after you explain to thepanel what a squirrel is and
that you actually feed them onyour deck I've purchased a
squirrel feeder for you with achair and corn cobs and after
you demonstrated that you winwith reverse domain name
hijacking, the registrant findsout, you save the day and you

(01:32:20):
got a reverse domain namehijacking.
And then what do you do?

Speaker 2 (01:32:24):
Don't get me talking about my squirrel.
We had an interesting time.
I want everyone to know thatJeff Gabriel actually bought me
a squirrel feeder, bought me alittle, a little picnic table
that holds corn cobs for thesquirrel that I feed every day.
I have.
I have befriended some crowsand I have a squirrel that come

(01:32:45):
and visit me every day and keepme sane because people don't
like me.

Speaker 1 (01:32:51):
So is it a loss with precedent on our DNH?
Oh, reverse domain hijacking.

Speaker 2 (01:32:58):
It is.
It is simply a way of of youknow, the panel saying we don't
really abide by what went onhere.
The complaint you know wasfiled without you know, due
regard for you know, because youput somebody through some
expense, threatened with theirvaluable domain name.

(01:33:18):
You know, and and and you're abad person.
And no, there's nothingtangible that applies to that
other than the fact thatsomebody paid an attorney a lot
of money to do this.
And the attorney said we'regoing to do this thing and
you're going to pay me a pile ofmoney, and the attorneys that
file these things get paid a lotmore than the attorneys that

(01:33:41):
defend these things, becausedomainers are cheap.

Speaker 1 (01:33:48):
You've been drinking and salt all your customers.

Speaker 2 (01:33:51):
I just thought it'd be, I know right.
All right, like I said, youknow there's different styles.
A lot of people don't like towork with me.

Speaker 1 (01:33:58):
So, anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:34:01):
That's.
That's why my only friends aretooth crows and a squirrel.

Speaker 1 (01:34:05):
Yeah, but oh the guy who needs and a guy who needs
guests on a show you know that'ssmarmy asshole.
Whoever he or she was, has to goback to the client and say,
well, we got the decision andyou know, you didn't win and
they said you know I'm a dick,you know so red, stamp it with

(01:34:27):
our DNH across the whole thingand then they have to give it to
their client.
They just say, oh, we lost.
But, like with the person whofiled three UDRPs on the same
name space, spa, sc, got reversedomain hijacking what?
Twice or once?
Yeah, you know, I mean and Idon't even think that the owner

(01:34:48):
responded the last two timesright.
They just didn't respond andthey still won.

Speaker 2 (01:34:53):
Yeah, yeah, I'm trying to be.
I'm trying to be a nice, anicer person.
You know, not everybody youknow was born with the same
number of Legos in the box, andsome people that got the right
number of Legos, you know, mayhave lost a few along the way.

(01:35:13):
We all have different, you know, pathways that we follow.
I'm always trying to be a nicerperson and I keep a picture of
Zach Muscovich by my desk to say, you know, remind me, you know,
what would Zach do?
That's, that's kind of you know, and you know he might, he
might, he might charge more.
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:35:34):
What would Zach do?
Well, he is our.
He is our illustrious leader ofthe ice.

Speaker 2 (01:35:39):
Yes, zach Muscovich is the dear leader of us all now
.

Speaker 1 (01:35:43):
Yes, he is and he's great at what he does so.

Speaker 2 (01:35:47):
And he's a very, very good lawyer.
I have.
I have a lot of respect andadmiration.

Speaker 1 (01:35:51):
I think he's great in every way.
Well, we've we've reached alittle further than we wanted to
today and I think John and Ihave a lot more to talk about.
So we have some other UDRPs andsome other interesting cases
and case a lot of go over in thedomain business, but we'll do
that another day.
John, as always, I reallyappreciate your time and your
friendship and until next time.
Thanks guys.
John, actually, before we go,how can our listeners contact

(01:36:16):
you if they need some help?

Speaker 2 (01:36:21):
That's.
That's the first challenge,right?
Okay, so you know how aboutJohn?

Speaker 1 (01:36:26):
how about John Berryhillcom?

Speaker 2 (01:36:29):
You can't find me, I probably don't want to talk to
him.
That's.
I do that on the forums.
I'm like send me an email.
They're like what's your emailaddress?
I'm like figure it out.
Go to John Berryhillcom, makean inquiry there.

Speaker 1 (01:36:40):
You can probably figure it out All right, have a
good day.

All Episodes

Navigating the Legal Labyrinth: Domain Mastery With John Berryhill and Homage to Howard Neu | Saw.com

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Boysober

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Navigating the Legal Labyrinth: Domain Mastery With John Berryhill and Homage to Howard Neu | Saw.com